AB 69 adds two provisions to the California Insurance Code that aim to move eligible homeowners out of the California FAIR Plan and back into the admitted (voluntary) insurance market. The bill requires the FAIR Plan to give every policyholder an explicit, prominent notice about shopping for alternate coverage at least once a year, and it requires the broker of record to determine whether a given FAIR Plan policy can be placed with a voluntary market insurer before renewing that FAIR Plan policy.
The change matters to brokers, FAIR Plan administrators, admitted carriers, and homeowners. It formalizes marketing and placement responsibilities that have often been informal, creates a narrow but specific documentation and process expectation for brokers, and could accelerate a transfer of lower-risk business out of the FAIR Plan — with implications for risk concentration, premiums, and administrative burden across the market.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the FAIR Plan to provide a separate, 14-point bold-font notice to every policyholder annually (including at initial issuance and at each renewal) explaining the right to shop for other coverage and pointing to the Department of Insurance Home Insurance Finder. It also requires the broker of record, before renewal, to "determine" whether the policy can be placed with a voluntary market insurer, with "determine" defined by the broker's active market knowledge from placing or attempting to place similar coverage.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California FAIR Plan policyholders, brokers of record for FAIR Plan accounts, the California FAIR Plan Association (its communications process), and admitted property insurers that write homeowners coverage in California. The Department of Insurance is a referenced resource and will see increased use of its Home Insurance Finder tool.
Why It Matters
Professionals should watch for increased operational tasks: standardized notices from the FAIR Plan, new pre-renewal market checks by brokers, and potential movement of business into voluntary carriers. These shifts can change exposure for the FAIR Plan, affect premium dynamics, and create new compliance and documentation expectations for brokers and insurers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 69 creates two discrete obligations. First, it adds a mandatory consumer notice that the FAIR Plan must send to each policyholder on a separate page and in conspicuous 14-point bold type.
The notice must tell policyholders they can shop for other coverage and direct them to the state Department of Insurance Home Insurance Finder. The statute specifies frequency — with the initial policy issue and at each renewal included — but does not prescribe delivery method or enforcement sanctions.
Second, the bill imposes a placement check on brokers of record: before renewing a policy placed in the FAIR Plan, the broker must "determine" whether the policy can be moved to a voluntary market insurer. The bill defines "determine" narrowly as using the broker's active market knowledge gained from actually placing or attempting to place the same or similar coverage.
That creates a practical obligation for brokers to maintain contemporaneous market activity or a record of recent placement attempts for similar risks.Taken together, the duties turn what has often been informal advice into a required, repeatable process. FAIR Plan administrators must deliver a standardized notice to every policyholder; brokers must run and document a market check before renewal; and admitted carriers may see more direct placement inquiries.
The statute leaves several operational details to implementers — including what constitutes adequate documentation of a broker's market search, whether electronic delivery satisfies the "separate page" requirement, and how regulators will monitor compliance — so businesses will need to translate the statute into process, recordkeeping, and training plans.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds Section 10095.2 requiring the FAIR Plan to send an annual notice on a separate page in 14-point bold type, including at initial issuance and each renewal.
Specifies notice content that directs policyholders to shop around and to use the California Department of Insurance Home Insurance Finder as a resource.
Adds Section 10095.3(a) requiring the broker of record to determine, before each renewal, whether a FAIR Plan policy can be placed with a voluntary-market insurer.
Defines "determine" in Section 10095.3(b) as using the broker's knowledge gained from actively placing or attempting to place the same or similar insurance.
The bill prescribes process and disclosures but does not include express enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or required recordkeeping formats for broker determinations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory consumer notice from the FAIR Plan
This section mandates a specific, prominent notice to every FAIR Plan policyholder. The law prescribes the notice's substance (encouraging shopping and pointing to the DOI Home Insurance Finder), the font size (14-point bold), and that it be placed on a separate page, delivered at initial issue and at least annually thereafter. Practically, the FAIR Plan will need to change its issuance and renewal packets and any digital policy portals to ensure the notice appears as a distinct document; whether email or electronic statements satisfy the "separate page" requirement will hinge on administrative interpretation.
Broker duty to check voluntary-market availability before renewal
This subsection creates a pre-renewal obligation for the broker of record: before renewing a FAIR Plan policy, the broker must determine whether the risk can be moved to an admitted carrier. The statute transforms a best-practice market-check into an explicit legal duty tied to each renewal transaction, which is likely to require brokers to codify workflows, timing (when the check must occur relative to renewal notices), and internal responsibilities between producer, agency, and wholesaler.
Definition of "determine" — active market engagement required
The bill narrows what counts as a broker's determination: it must be grounded in the broker's knowledge from actively placing or attempting to place the same or similar property insurance. This language implies that passive familiarity with market conditions is insufficient. Brokers will need to evidence outreach or active placement efforts for comparable risks — a standard that raises questions about acceptable documentation (emails to underwriters, declination notices, quotation requests) and the temporal window that qualifies as "active."
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- FAIR Plan policyholders (homeowners in high-risk or hard-to-place areas): they receive a clear, standardized prompt to shop for admitted-market coverage and a pointer to the DOI Home Insurance Finder, improving their information about alternatives.
- Brokers with admitted-market relationships: the duty creates more opportunities to place eligible risks with voluntary carriers, potentially growing revenues from policies that migrate out of the FAIR Plan.
- Admitted property insurers: carriers that underwrite homeowners risks may get increased submission flow of risks that previously defaulted to the FAIR Plan, allowing more targeted underwriting and better risk segmentation.
- California Department of Insurance (DOI): increased usage of DOI's Home Insurance Finder aligns consumers with the agency's tools and may concentrate inquiries through state resources, aiding consumer outreach objectives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Brokers of record: must perform, document, and possibly defend market-placement checks before every FAIR Plan renewal, increasing labor, recordkeeping, and potentially procurement costs for placement efforts.
- California FAIR Plan Association: must redesign issuance and renewal materials and systems to insert a separate-page, 14-point bold notice for all policyholders, with attendant printing, mailing, and systems-change costs.
- Remaining FAIR Plan policyholders: if lower-risk policies migrate to the voluntary market, the FAIR Plan's risk pool could concentrate higher-risk exposures, exerting upward pressure on premiums or prompting coverage changes for those who remain.
- Small or solo brokerages: may struggle with the administrative burden and potential costs of repeated active placement attempts without economies of scale enjoyed by larger brokerages.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades a push for consumer choice and voluntary-market placement against increased administrative burden and the risk of adverse selection: it seeks to move eligible homeowners into the admitted market, but doing so may hollow out the FAIR Plan's risk pool and raise costs for those who remain, while imposing nontrivial operational and documentation demands on brokers without clear enforcement or support mechanisms.
The bill sets clear objectives but leaves a number of implementation and enforcement questions unresolved. It prescribes the notice's content and appearance but does not state whether electronic delivery satisfies the "separate page" requirement, nor does it set a standard timeline for when a broker's pre-renewal determination must occur relative to renewal notices.
Importantly, it does not prescribe what documentation will satisfy the statutory "determine" requirement, leaving brokers and regulators to negotiate acceptable proof (for example, declination letters, submission logs, or contemporaneous emails).
There is also a classic adverse-selection risk: by incentivizing or facilitating the migration of eligible risks to admitted carriers, the statute may accelerate a concentration of higher-loss properties within the FAIR Plan, raising premiums for remaining policyholders and potentially changing the FAIR Plan's actuarial profile. The bill does not include transitional or rate-making adjustments to address that dynamic.
Finally, the absence of explicit penalties or supervisory mechanisms creates uncertainty about how compliance will be monitored and enforced, and whether disputes about a broker's efforts will generate litigation or regulatory complaints rather than administrative remediation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.